I'll have to look more into it but it doesn't make any to charge an undercover officer for drug offenses when you have someone who provided the key piece of evidence that other wise makes drug dealing convictions nearly impossible. Personally the whole thing was a waste time and resources that didn't change anything except new problems but she is in a very dangerous job but you'd think being around meth users would mean it would be more dangerous but it actually makes it less dangerous. People who use it and it is nearly universal will have paranoia and theories (which assumptions have more weight than something true, they'll believe a lie but doubt the truth). The thing about under cover officers is you have to be a talented actor to be good at it, she probably looked, played, and acted the part she likely faced much suspicion, and most people involved in the meth world were suspected of being an undercover cop at one time so there is little danger since everyone knows people trip out once in awhile.
The thing is when they start getting one of these conspiracy theories going, they do things that defeats the purpose. They think unsolicited explanations are the best way to handle potential suspicions. One has even went so far to tell me he doesn't have any drugs inside his home has used any during a conversation which the interjection of that information had nothing to do with anything, I didn't ask, inquire or even give a shit. (A)For all looks & appearances I'm just a regular citizen so no reason for him to think I was on an enforcement fishing expedition other than a hunch (B)Not saying anything at all has the same effect, if not better included the added benefit of it doesn't arouse suspicions.
This is the kind of logic at play here. I got off topic but the part the makes law enforcement difficult to make sure the enforcers don't break the law is cops protecting cops who break the law but damn. Wouldn't her role as an undercover officer make this a slam dunk case for entrapment in any case?